What I read was: “The Benefits of Catechetical Praying.” I’m so glad I misread that. It sparked a helpful idea in my head.

The Problem

I find that I’m often redundant in prayer. I’ll often revert to the same thoughts, especially in thanksgiving and praise to God. If I constantly thank God for the same three-to-five things my prayer life gets stagnant. It’s not healthy.

What Is a Catechism?

A catechism is a tool for doctrinal instruction that is usually presented in a question-answer format.

I preached Ephesians 6:1-9 this weekend. It’s the hardest passage I’ve tackled. That’s due to the instruction: “slaves obey your masters.” If you want to pick a passage in the book of Ephesians that is most offensive to our day, it’s either this or “wives submit to your husbands.” My guess is that slavery is still more controversial.

This was a detailed series with a hefty word count so it might be helpful to have a visual representation of the argument:

On the left you see the development of Passover feast to Lord’s table in red. A corresponding movement from circumcision to baptism is shown in blue. On the right side, in the grayed out area, is the Presbyterian conception of the transition from circumcision to baptism.

This chart highlights the inconsistency in the Presbyterian view of the transition of the sacraments. They must recognize unregenerate children participated in the Passover yet also declare the Lord’s table is only open to the regenerate. However, they deny that a similar refinement exists for the circumcision-to-baptism transition even though baptism is clearly linked to regeneration also. They therefore have a divergent view of how the sacraments transition from Old to New Covenants.

This covenantal defense of credobaptism hinges on the interpretation that children did participate in the Passover; so if there is one place for more discussion that’s probably it. The second linchpin is the connection of baptism to regeneration. However, once the former issue is settled, reading the texts about baptism in that context will only strengthen my argument.

I hope his series has benefited you. I know it was a bit more involved than usual so if you have any questions feel free to ask!

This is the fifth entry in a six-part series titled A Covenantal Defense of Credobaptism. It is a lightly-edited version of a paper I submitted for the Westminster seminary course Doctrine of the Church.

Baptism Is Tied to Indicative Regeneration

In contrast to circumcision, which (like the Passover) did not necessarily entail regeneration of the heart, baptism (like the Lord’s Table) is linked to actual regeneration constituted of redemption in the individual’s life. This stands in contrast to the Anabaptist tradition: baptism is not, “representative of the believer’s… imitation of Christ.”1 Nor is it, “a visible sign of one’s profession of God-given faith.”2 Rather, it is a sign of Christ’s regenerative work wrought in the believer through the work of the Holy Spirit. This definition of credobaptism places it in line with the covenantal understanding that a sacrament is, “a testimony of the divine favour toward us, confirmed by an external sign, with a corresponding attestation of our faith towards Him.”3

Beginning in Colossians 2:11-12 we see the clearest link between the Old Covenant circumcision and New Covenant baptism. The two ordinances are clearly linked but not the same. There is an obvious progression from the former to the latter. The element of union with Christ has progressed such that baptism is predicated on actual regeneration:

Burial with him in baptism shows that they were truly involved in his death and laid in his grave. It is not as though they simply died like Jesus died, or were buried as he was laid in the tomb… Rather, they died with him on the cross and were laid in his grave… The burial proves that a real death has occurred and the old life is now a thing of the past… Not only did the readers die with Christ in his death and were buried with him in baptism. They were also raised with him in resurrection.4

“The resurrection of the Colossians with Christ has already taken place: it is described by means of an aorist tense.”5 This is not something that might take place subsequent to baptism. Paul, “presume[s] the present experience of the resurrection life in Christ.”6

Circumcision Tied to Potential Regeneration

While it is true that credobaptists have often robbed circumcision of its full meaning it is equally true that covenant theologians have read far too much of the New Testament backwards into it.1 Murray correctly argues that circumcision, “was not essentially or primarily the sign of family, racial, or national identity.”2 However the, “union and communion with Jehovah, the God of Israel,”3 implied was a potentiality, not a reality.

Murray’s position does not eliminate the problem covenant theologians face. The issue is whether the signified union was a present reality or a future promise. The very passages Murray cites to defend his view overtly and repeatedly demonstrate that the Israelites, all of whom participated in circumcision, did not at that time uniformly have the regeneration – a “circumcised heart” – to which circumcision ultimately pointed.4There is no corresponding New Testament command to the church to become regenerate. Rather there are only admonitions to act in line with the recipients’ present regeneration.

As we will see, while circumcision was tied to potential regeneration, baptism is only ever spoken of in indicative terms of regeneration.

Citations:

Wellam will say, “the paedobaptist attempt to reduce the meaning of circumcision merely to its spiritual significance is a classic example of reading new covenant realities into the old.” The paedobaptist does not import indicative regeneration from the NT into circumcision but I will argue also does not give it enough weight in the NT.

Who Participates in the Lord’s Table?

Moving to the Lord’s Table we see it, “demands a twofold condition: a preceding in examination; a concomitant in a commemoration of the death of Christ, both of which presuppose the use of reason,”1 while its predecessor, the Passover meal, was celebrated by those without that capacity. Though entire households participated in the Passover meal (and ate the manna in the wilderness if John 6 is read as relating to the Lord’s Table2) the new covenant adds a stipulation which prohibits children from participation: regenerate self-examination.

I encourage you to read the introductory post again as I made an error in the statement of the Presbyterian position. This error does not affect the substance of the post but I do not want to present an inaccurate view.

Children Participated in the Passover Celebration

In examining the manner in which the sacraments transition from Old to New covenants we will first examine the movement of Passover to Lord’s Table. The paedobaptist position relies on the assumption that unregenerate children did not participate in the Passover. Covenant theologians deal with the question of the participants of the Passover meal in several way:

First, Hodge leaves the question untreated in his systematic theology. Second, in perhaps the majority stance, some assert that children did not participate in the Passover. Turretin states, “[circumcision] was administered to infants and [the Passover] to adults alone.”1 As we will see this bald assertion will not stand.

Second, Calvin argues, “The passover, for which the Supper is substituted, did not admit all kinds of guests promiscuously, but was duly eaten only by those who were of an age sufficient to ask the meaning of it (Exod. 12:26).”2 Even so, this argument is not “so very clear and obvious” as Calvin would like. Even if granted in its entirety, Calvin’s position, by his own admission, requires the participation of children who explicitly do not know the content of their faith’s most central celebration. Nowhere in the text is the Passover restricted to older children. Rather, the natural reading of the passage in its Hebrew context would put in view a picture where year by year children aged into understanding the Passover tradition observed by the whole family.

Third, perhaps the best supporter of Calvin’s position argues, “It is not at all clear that children participated in the Passover meal… For example, Exodus 12:26 tells us that the children would ask their parents, ‘What do you mean by this service?’ If they had participated, it would make more sense to say, ‘What do we mean?'”3 The Greek tradition helps interpret this verse in concert with the familial setting already in view in the surrounding context. It omits any second person reference: “Τίς ἡ λατρία αὕτη” and could very likely be translated, “What does this festival mean?”.4 The Hebrew translation, “What is the meaning of this ritual,”5 which eliminates the distancing language of the second person, is preferred. Even if granted in its entirety, however, this does not require that children did not participate. Rather, it means that children asked the head of the household what he was doing as he led the family through the Passover remembrance. Even if we give it the most generous reading, the most this argument can say is that this particular passage is indeterminate on the question of children physically participating in the Passover.

Fourth, Bavinck argues that the later celebration in Exodus 23:17, excluding children, should govern our interpretation of the inaugural Passover.6 This interpretation is not only a backwards reading of the text but, by that logic, adult women would also be excluded from the Lord’s Table as they too did not celebrate the Passover. The later movement to solely men celebrating the Passover should not be viewed as fencing away children. Rather, “the heads of families (all the men) would stand to worship,” as representatives of the whole family.7

The continuity of participants is of particular importance to this discussion. The weight of biblical evidence suggests that, even though children are not to partake of the Lord’s Table, they did participate in the Passover meal. The lamb was for the entire household (Ex 12:4) and the children who did not yet understand their faith were involved in the celebration (Ex 12:26).

Even Without the Meal Children Were Participants in The Passover

More importantly, even if these criticisms of infant participation in the Passover meal are correct, they uniformly miss a critical fact: Even if children didn’t physically consume the meal itself they were certainly beneficiaries of the realized redemption symbolized and were therefore participants in the sacrament’s substance. While obviously not in every case, there is no question that, in many Hebrew families, the sparing of the firstborn had in view a child too young to trust Yahweh. Even if they did not physically eat the meal they were participants in the event since they were the objects of God’s realized redemptive action.

Conclusion

In summary:

There is no compelling reason to believe children too young for faith were excluded from participation in the Passover meal. In fact, there is good reason to believe they did partake in the celebration.

Even more, they absolutely received the actual redemption symbolized by the meal and were therefore participants in the essence of the sacrament.